Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This is incorrect, and if you'd simply bother reading this thread and the links provided, you'd know better than to say that.
-- CO2 production is based upon fuel economy, not displacement. Fuel economy is a function of a combination engine output, vehicle weight, driving conditions, driving style and vehicle maintenance
-- The production of "air pollution", as defined by EPA, does not neatly correlate with engine displacement. Read the EPA data, and you'll see that some verions of the 2.5 liter Nissan Sentra pollute more than Corvettes and Aston Martin DB7's, among others.
On the whole, you'd accomplish more by expanding equipment requirements for cars that are commonly driven than you would by attacking a few Bugattis that have yet to hit the market.
This is incorrect, and if you'd simply bother reading this thread and the links provided, you'd know better than to say that"
I think he is assiduously ignoring the information that the 2002 330i BMW throws off more greeen house gasses than the Corvette Z06. The BMW 330i has of course a smaller engine than the Corvette Z06. Also BMW 540i for a V8 is more efficient at generating green house gasses (and again is smaller than the Chevy small block V8) Frankly to me no big deal. Now I realize it is his opinion, but the above has been his mantra and it aint necessarily so!!!
In part yes, in part no. A WOT a Vette is going to produce more greenhouse gases than a SCION at WOT. Furthermore the EPA mileage standards are being revisited. If you researched sites that listed greenhouse gas pollution, it is a clear trend, higher horsepower engines tend to produce more greenhouse pollution. As was shown in a previous post comparing a E320 against a 4 cylinder engine, the E320 gets better gas mileage, but produces far more total pollution.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6148&sequence=0
http://www.smmtco2.co.uk/co2search2.asp
I think you are winking at the problem. It is the millions of overpowered sedans that put out the bulk of whatever. Go after the 200HP+ vehicles. Anything over a 175 HP in a family vehicle is unneeded to keep up with the flow. Let's make a difference if we are going after polluters. Refuse to license any car that does not meet current EPA standards. Think of the boom in car sales. There is no doubt that a 5 year old Camry pollutes more than a new Corvette. A 2006 V6 Camry 3L engine puts out 8.2 tons of GHG, and the 6L Corvette V8 puts out 8.8 tons. And I would bet that the Camry gets driven a lot more than the Corvette. So lets go after the REAL polluters. The Family Sedans with high HP.
Well, it is true the older a car gets relatively a new car will always have better standards. The problem with the figures you cite is they are not based on the probable real usage of either vehicle. A Vette driven as intended will have emissions that dwarf the Camry.
You are assuming a lot. My neighbors with Vettes are much more sane than the ones with rice rockets. I also think you are beating a dead horse. As long as people can afford more HP they will buy it. No matter how environmentally astute they may be. I think the sales of the RX400h is a prime example. Those people that paid $10k more for the hybrid think they are doing something for the environment. You are not going to legislate common sense no matter how much you try.
Shall we also tax people who emit more C02, a tax? Fat folks, athletes like Lance Armstrong. Man I'd sure like to be the Mafia boss who gets a cut of this 293M USA customer taxation base!
Yup! while the Corvette might be KD Shapiro's whipping boy's poster child, the fact remains that IF the Corvette is less driven,
(actually it is if what a large majority of Vettes sell for with low low low mileage is any indication,say 2000 miles per year)
THEN indeed it is the bread and butter, 12-15k miles per year vehicles such as BMW, Subaru, Honda Toyota, etc, etc, that throw off the most "pollution". Indeed a commute (15,000 miles)Prius throws off more than a Z06 Corvette 3.6 tons vs 1 ton for the Corvette.
So indeed the methods to "penalize" commute traffic already exist! Its called buy more gas; pay more! And pay more taxes!! (volume)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
My comments re: the EPA had nothing to do with how the EPA measures fuel economy, but is based upon how CO2 is produced. From the EPA:
Vehicles with lower fuel economy create more carbon dioxide- the most important human-made greenhouse gas- than vehicles with higher fuel economy. Every gallon of gasoline your vehicle burns puts 20 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
So of course a Corvette will produce more CO2 than a Scion, because it uses more fuel. But a Scion is producing more particulate matter than a Corvette. Look at the EPA data, and this becomes clear: The Scion Xb and Xc are producing 50% more NOx, 15% more organic components, and 3 times the particulate matter of the Corvette, while the Xc produces about the same.
Well, it is true the older a car gets relatively a new car will always have better standards. The problem with the figures you cite is they are not based on the probable real usage of either vehicle. A Vette driven as intended will have emissions that dwarf the Camry. "...
Again, I would not consider 2001 Corvette 8.5 tons vs 1996 Camry 8.0 tons DWARFING!!
Again if a Vette is driven (like in the real world) the Camry give FAR more!! 5000 miles 2.8 tons vs 15,000 miles 8 tons.
But the yearly production of Vettes (34,000) is DWARFED by the yearly production of Camry's. (Camry posted (2005 sic)year-end sales of 431,703,http://www.toyota.com/about/news/corporate/2006/01/04-1-sales.html)Just this fact alone dictates the Camry is by far dwarfs the Corvette in pollution.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
Well, let's not take things too far. To the extent that horsepower is an indicator of greater fuel consumption, which it certainly can be a fair amount of the time, he is correct.
Where he is incorrect is (a) to assume that displacement = horsepower, when this is not the case, (b) to presume that output is the only culprit in fuel consumption, when it is not and (c) to believe that small engines are necessarily cleaner than larger ones, which is clearly not the case in many instances.
I do support the notion of consuming less fuel, but even his own link promotes pollution fees and taxes, rather than caps on emissions, as the primary way to get there. To bring his own link to the discussion here, it would be preferable to make people pay for the emissions that they create, regardless of how they make them.
Now granted KD has suspended disbelief to graphically illustrate his point (from an argumentation point of view I can and do grant him that). But as I have said, the reality is FAR FAR FAR different. Did I say far different?
I also would agree the less use the better, or greater the mpg the better.
However, the Camry and the Z06 have essentially the SAME mpg!!!!!! Corvette 19/28 combo 22 vs Camry 20/27 combo 22. 8.5 tons vs 8.5 tons, lev 2 car vs lev 2 car. When does same/same become significantly different?
So given same/same but numbers being 34,000 vs 431,000 which segement pollutes more?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
YOU are the acknowledged MASTER of denial!! I would yield to your pre eminence!
Again, given 34,000 per year (Z06 is only app 7,000, 2001 was only 5335 or so) vs 431,000 Camry's ONLY per year Toyota even with its so call "improvements" STILL produces more pollution, and by a HUGE volume and of course percentage. Yes I know reality is not all it is cracked up to be.
So for example, out of the 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year the average driver puts on the car how much is dedicated to getting to work? As most folks are aware commuting to work is not tax deductible.
For those that can WALK to work you are indeed from that point of view fortunate and you are part of an extreme minority. Most of the regulations make it almost impossible to live within walking distance of your work. There are of course exceptions, but we are talking of the average driver?
In the context of governments, paying taxes: telephone, gas, electric, garbage,water, sewer, tolls, fuel, real estate, income taxes, etc. I hope I haven't left any out.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR69V4zz/
Click on the 05 Trends pdf.
"Transportation End-Use Sector. Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 32
percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2003.3 Virtually all of the energy consumed in this enduse
sector came from petroleum products. Over 60 percent of the emissions resulted from gasoline consumption for
personal vehicle use. The remaining emissions came from other transportation activities, including the combustion
of diesel fuel in heavy-duty vehicles and jet fuel in aircraft."
So if my calculator is correct 60% x 32% is approximately 20% of CO2 of human-origin comes from personal autos. If we reduced fuel consumption 10% by eliminating low mpg vehicles, we can reduce human-orign CO2 by 2%. Unfortunately because our population and economy are growing our fuel demand goes up even as our per capita usage would go down. We need more electricity and that causes CO2 to go up, every year. I don't see reducing hp or getting a few mpg more as doing anything to stop overall CO2 emissions.
The only ways to make a major dent in CO2 emissions from increasing each year is: a long global economic depression, a very bad pandemic, a world war, or a breakthru to fusion energy. I only like 1 of those choices. Give your Congressman a call and tell them to put the pedal-to-the-metal on ITER. http://www.iter.org/index.htm
Why not go directly to the problem you want to address by proposing a large increase in taxes on all fossil fuels...a carbon tax? If you want to encourage less use of something just tax the thing itself.
I am not suggesting this is a good idea, just that it is a better way to get the results you want.
That's exactly right. Except what's really going on here is that you have a few people here who really just want to reduce driving speeds, and they are hoping that this attack on performance cars is one back-door way to get there. These other concerns are really not their priority, otherwise they'd want to take action against any and all vehicles that contribute to the problem, not just the faster ones.
At last...a voice of reason. Of course, a performance car isn't needed to drive quickly. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, any modern passenger car sold in the US and Canada is capable of driving at speeds that would exceed the speed limits and make those particular posters wince.
Have the governor checked every inspection. Anyone who tampers with the device and say gets caught going 100mph would be guilty of a felony with many thousands in fines and jail-time. That would eliminate 99.9% of the drivers from tampering.
Now I'm not really a supporter of that; I'm just pointing out that the government's certainly doesn't have it's heart into it. Most people are hypocrites when it comes to driving. You can ask a majority of people if they support the existing traffic laws and they'll say yes; then they'll go out and disregard them.
"And with economic growth forecast above 9 percent in coming years, China's total oil and gas imports are expected to rise sharply."
From http://channels.netscape.com/pf/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060205/1415359116- - .htm&sc=1333
Getting rid of the Vipers, Ferraris, and AMG's will make this better.
Ahh my friend I took lessons from you.
Isn't this a 'horsepower/speed limit' thread and not a 'pollution is bad' thread?
:confuse:
me: You're right; we shouldn't spend so much time explaining that a Band-Aid just isn't going to work for a person who has had their leg bit off by a shark.
While cars like the Z06 etc (aka high hp) might be the poster children for your vilification on the pollution issue, the fact of the matter is the cars doing the majority of the "polluting" are indeed mainstream cars which you have time and time demonstrated you have absolutely no problem with. (Camry, Corolla, BMW, MB, GM, and Ford products. etc etc.)
Given the example of the 431,000 per year Camry vs the Z06 Corvette 34,000 per year, you have more than shown your pre eminence!
It's not 34,000 Vettes pollute less than 431,000 Camry. It's 1 Vette pollutes more than 1 Camry.
Your eminence!
Lets move on you obviously either dont get it, ignoring it or truly have some other agenda that is not supported by the facts.
So given the government numbers, the Vette actually produces more power, gives the same mpg as the Camry with 2 less cylinders. In fact one can deduce the vette is indeed more efficient. I think this galls you for some reason. If it does you should really work on Toyota. In your specific case you should work on BMW.
That may be true, but the overall macro problem of pollution creation would get better results if the emphasis was placed on the Camrys rather than on the Corvettes, because there a lot more Camrys.
You'd accomplish far more simply by putting California-standards emissions equipment on every car and truck sold in the US (or for that matter, throughout the planet) than you would by targeting the owners of a few niche products. Generally, results get generated when emphasis on placed on changes that create real bang for the buck.
Would you rather do something that is meaningful, or would you rather just lash out at performance car drivers because you enjoy the symbolism? Assuming that you're serious, this seems more greatly inspired by fear and envy than it does by a desire for rational public policy.
Exactly!!! If you tax and limit the Corvettes, in effect you give carte blanche for the Camry's to create the majority of the pollution. As your logic goes would solve nothing. I mean if you really wanted more taxation you should tax the Camrys, which produce the majority of the pollution.
So if I can understand your denial, what you are saying is 34,000 cars pollute more than 431,000 cars essentially with the same numbers?
(8.5 tons vs 8.5 tons, lev 2 vs lev2, Vette mpg 19/28 combo 22 vs Camry 20/27 combo 22.)
Words such as excessive and massive are commonly used by automotive journalists when writing about high powered cars. I do recall seeing reviews of cars with approx 400+ HP up to 1000 HP where these words were in the text of articles.
Dictionary:
Excess – n. an amount or quantity greater than is necessary
Excessive – adj. being too much or too great
Massive – adj. larger or greater than normal
Addressing Board Topic – Is 400, 500, 600 1000 HP necessary for cars, given the present posted speed limits in US?
Consider Bugatti with 1000 HP which will be sold as street legal. Road test of Bugatti by Car and Driver stated that 500 HP was used to get to 185 MPH and the remaining 500 HP was used to get to top speed around 230 MPH.
So, with regards to Board Topic, how should 1000 HP engine of Bugatti be characterized? Insufficient, Adequate, Excessive?
One can read similar road tests of Z06, Viper and so forth, regarding top speeds that they attain.
If HP of Bugatti, Z06, Viper, etc. are deemed adequate, should US speed limits be raised to 180-230 MPH to accommodate drivers of these cars? Is US discriminating against these drivers, and also M's, AMG's, etc. drivers, by not allowing them to legally drive their cars at speeds their engines were designed for?
I truly see no real campaign to go back to the 1970 VW Beetle with 57 hp!?? In fact while 31-34 mpg was good with the VW, The Honda Civic gets 37-41. In fact the Honda Civic, which is the quintessential economy car (Edmunds.com) has 110 hp, which is nearly double.
What a strawman argument. Who is suggesting this?
In any case, I've always argued for the solution proposed by traffic engineers -- a speed limit based upon the flow of traffic, except in those few circumstances when such a limit is inappropriate. Not sure where you live, but in my neck of the woods, I don't see many people driving 185 mph.
That is not what I see in "real world" driving tests in various magazines. Camry is quite a bit better.
Not a board topic, but generally, as HP of cars goes up, MPG goes down. Also, as other posters have pointed out, have to compare apples to apples, which would be current technology approx 2005-2006. Can't compare 1999 to 2006.
As example, look at summary of R & T for MPG. Make sure to exclude the estimated MPGs.
In spirit of keeping on Board Topic -
So, if in CA, folks are going 80-85 MPH in open areas interstate, and speed limits were then posted accordingly, then what amount of 1000 HP engine would driver in Bugatti (from Beverly Hills?) be using? How much EXCESS HP would that Bugatti have at that speed? Would it be 200, 400, 600, 800, etc. HP?
I guess by your metric, it is wise to totally ignore the rest of the passenger vehicle fleet of 235,404,000 ??
pg 11
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2004EARelease.pdf
I guess by your metric it is wise to totally ignore the rest of the passenger vehicle fleet of 235,404,000 ??
I offered an example based on an R & T resting on my coffee table. If one has the time, and saves old issues of R & T, could look at various years in past. Don't have these old issues, but are you saying that higher HP cars got better MPG than lower HP cars in decades of 70's, 80's 90's?
This has been already covered. Horsepower isn't just used to achieve higher speeds, but also to enhance performance at the lower and middle ends of the powerband.
You can't claim that a Corvette gets from 0 to 60 mph, or from 50 to 70 mph, with the same lack of joie de vivre or with the sterility of a Camry. A typical performance car buyer is not buying the car strictly for top speed capability, so your point is really moot.
I must not communicate very well
Lets see:
1970 VW Beetle 31-34 mpg 57 hp
2004 Honda Civic 37-41 mpg 110 hp
Same mpg but different hp?
2001 Corvette Z06 19/28 combo 22 MPG 385 hp
2001 Toyota Camry 20/27 combo 22 MPG 194 hp
It needs to be kept in mind the models, etc, that hit the market are in accordance with CAFE regulations!!!!???? In other words, why can't people get 44-63 mpg cars such as the VW Jetta TDI? Yup, CAFE standards!!!!
If CAFE standards were raised to 40 MPG instead of 27 MPG. All the MFG companies would have diesel cars available. None of them like paying the fines. So the HP race is on and the MPG stays at 27 MPG. High 20s for a 6L V8 is pretty impressive.
You can't claim that a Corvette gets from 0 to 60 mph, or from 50 to 70 mph, with the same lack of joie de vivre or with the sterility of a Camry. A typical performance car buyer is not buying the car strictly for top speed capability, so your point is really moot.
I guess I understand your position. You claim that all 1000 HP is needed to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph. None of that 1000 HP is excessive. Not even 5 HP. The Bugatti driver would need it all. According to Motor Trend, it accelerates quicker than a NASCAR stocker. But, you contend all of the 1000 HP is needed on public roads.